T. BALAKRISHNA MEHTA Vs. M.S. MAHADEVA IYER AND THE ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff appeals from a decree of Ganesan, J., dismissing his suit for a declaration of his title to the plaint -schedule property and for possession. There is a long history behind the dispute, but on the view we take, it is not necessary to cover the entire field. The suit property is of an extent of 4131 sq. ft. included in a larger extent of 9 grounds 665 sq. ft. in S. No. 145, Mount Road, Madras - Originally, it belonged to the Nawab of Arcot and from him it devolved on Nawab Munawar Khan, who left two children, Nawah Ghulam Mohideen Khan, who died recently, and Azeem Unnissa Begum. In June, 1912 one Mohammad Abdul Khader Saheb purchased the property from Nawab Munawar Khan. The purchaser's son, in his turn, conveyed the property by way of sale to one Amathur Kareem Hamithunnissa Begum Saheba for a certain consideration. It is evident from this sale -deed that the property was purchased by the vendor from the Prince of Arcot, that the vendor was indebted to his wife in a certain sum towards mahr and that the sale was to discharge the mahr debt. The extent covered by the sale was 4131 sq. ft., the relative Collector's Certificate being No. 3035 and old Survey No. 447 -448, Re -survey Nos. 32, 35 and 36. Both Mohammad Abdul Khader Saheb and his wife died leaving one son and four daughters. In September, 1919, this Court appointed Khan Saheb Mohammad and Mohammad Abdul Huz Saheb Ashiff Hussain Saheb as property guardians of the minors in a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act. In March, 1922, this Court directed that the property be sold by the property -guardians in public auction. This public auction was in December, 1922. One T. Ranganatha Mehta the brother of the plaintiff, happened to be the purchaser. The consideration paid by Mehta was a sum of Rs. 9,100. The sale was confirmed by this Court and a sale certificate was issued later. In March, 1938, the Corporation of Madras took on lease this property for the purpose of a school. It appears, in 1947, there was a partition in the family of the purchaser in public auction, and at that, this property fell to the share of the appellant. He got back delivery of possession from the Corporation in March, 1961. In December, 1963, finding that the property was notified for sale under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, the appellant sent representations to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay, claiming ownership. He was represented at Bombay by his counsel. In January, 1968; by which time the appellant had demolished the building on the site for the purpose of reconstruction, the purchaser from the Regional Settlement Commissioner, got into possession of the property. Thereafter, the appellant instituted the suit out of Which the present appeal arises.

(2.) WITH reference to the record of evidence, the learned trial Judge has found that sometime in 1954, the suit property had been included in the schedule of properties belonging to the evacuee, Azeem Unnissa Begum, we referred to earlier, who opted to migrate to Pakistan. The Custodian of Evacuee Property himself has not been impleaded as a defendant. The appellant sought declaration of his title and possession only as against the purchaser under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) THE suit was resisted on various grounds which are reflected in the issue framed at the trial.